N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R AJESH KUM AR , Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-74112 Age n c y No. A089-703-935 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 19, 2015 ** Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : NOONAN, W

ARD LAW , a

nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. R a je sh Kum ar, a

native and c itiz e n of India , a ppe a ls the de c ision of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) de ny ing his a pplic a tion for withholding of re m ova l, a sy lum , a

n d prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ), ba se d on the im

m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) a d ve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion. W e 

# FIL ED D EC 08 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e grant Kum ar’ s pe tition a nd re m and it to the B IA for a d ditiona l proc e e dings. The B IA’ s fa c tua l findings a re re vie we d for substa

ntia l e vide nc e , while que stions of la

w a re re vie w e d de novo. Zhang v . Gonzale s , 408 F.3d 1239, 1244 (9th C ir. 2005). B e c a

use Kum ar file d his a

pplic a tion a fte r M ay

11, 2005, his c a se is gove rne d by

the R E AL ID Ac t of 2005. Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th C ir. 2010). Unde r that sta tute , ne ga tive c re dibility

de te rm inations m ay be ba se d on grounds tha

t do not go to the

he art of a pe titione r’ s c la im . Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii). An IJ m ay ba se an a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination on a ny re le va nt fa c t or tha

t c an re a sona

bly be sa id to ha

ve a “ be aring on a pe titione r’ s ve ra c ity ” in light of the tota lity of the c i rc um sta

nc e s. S hre stha , 590 F.3d at 1044. Although the R EAL ID Ac t e xpa n ds the ba se s on whic h a

n a ge nc y m ay re st a n a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination, trivial inc onsiste nc ie s “ t ha t unde r the t ota l c irc um sta

nc e s ha ve no be aring on a

pe titione r’ s ve ra c ity should not form the b a sis” of suc h a

de te rm ination. Id. In a d dition, a pe titione r m

ust ha ve the opportunity

to e xpla in a

ny inc onsiste nc ie s upon whic h the B IA re lie s, a nd the B IA m ust a d dre ss the se e xpla

na tions in its opinion. Singh v . Gonzale s , 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th C ir. 2006).

2Our re vie w “ is lim ite d to the B IA’ s de c ision, e xc e pt to thee xte nt the IJ’ s opinion is e xpre s sly

a dopte d.” Hosse ini v . Gonzale s , 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th C ir. 2006) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). The B IA re v ie we d the IJ’ s a dve rse c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion for c le ar e rror but did not e xpre ssly a d opt its opinion. Inste a d, the B IA re lie d on thre e purporte d inc onsiste n c ie s a

rising from

te s tim ony re ga rding Kum ar’ s visa , pa s sport, a nd c a ste . W e find tha

t a ny inc onsiste nc ie s re ga

rding Kum ar’ s visa

an d pa ssport a

re trivia l a nd not proba

tive of his ve ra c ity . Re n v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9th C ir. 2011). At im

m igration he arings be twe e n 2009 a nd 2010, Kum ar te stifie d tha t he ha d a pplie d for a

pa ssport a

n d visa s whe n he wa s on a high sc h ool we ightlifting te a m “ quite som e tim e a go” around 1995 or 1996. He e xpla ine d tha

t his c oa c h ke pt his pa ssport a fte r his visa s we re de nie d a nd tha t he subse q

ue ntly forgot he ha d e ve r a pplie d for visa s or owne d a pa ssport whe n a ske d a

bout the m during the a sy lum inte rvie ws. Kum ar’ s fa ilure to re m e m be r a pply ing for visa s he did not obta in, a nd a pa s sport he obta ine d m ore tha n a de c a d e be fore but ne ve r phy sic a lly posse s se d or use d , is we ll within “ the norm a l lim its of hum an unde rsta n ding a nd m e m o ry ” tha

t c ould pla

usibly m a k e suc h “ inc onsiste nc ie s or la c k of re c a ll pre se nt in a n y witne s s’ s c a se . ” S

hre stha , 590 F.3d a

t 1044-45. The y

are thus so mi nor

3that

the y c annot c onstitute substa

ntia l e vide n c e or se rve a s the ba se s for an a dve rse c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion. Id . a t 1047. In a ddition, the

B IA’ s justific a tions for its re j e c tion of Kum ar’ s e xpla

na tions we re insuffic i e nt. First, the B IA’ s sta

te m e nt tha

t Kum ar fa ile d to e xpla in why he wa s m o re intim idate d by

the se c urity

gua rds a t the a sy lum

offic e tha

n the polic e offic e rs in theim

m i gra tion c ourtroom

doe s not a c c ount for the dra stic a lly diffe re nt c irc um s ta nc e s tha t pre fa c e d e a c h sc e na

rio. Se c ond, the B IA’ s sta te m e n t tha

t Kum ar fa ile d to e xpla in why his ne rvousne ss m a de him forge t only c e rta i n fa c ts and not othe rs doe s not ta ke into a c c ount Kum ar’ s e xp la na tion tha t he ha d a pplie d for the visa s a

nd obta i ne d his pa ssport m ore tha n a de c a de be fore . Fina lly , the B IA’ s sta te m e nt tha

t one of the a sy lum

offic e rs c re dibly

te stifie d tha t Kum ar did not a ppe a r “ c o nfuse d” during a

n inte rvie w ha s no be aring on whe the r Kum a r wa s ne rvous during the

inte rvie w, a

nd thus doe s not prope rly a ddre ss tha

t e xpla na tion. Suc h a la c k of c o nside ra tion give n to Kum ar’ s “ p roffe re d e xpla na tion[s] wa s e rror and pre ve nts the unde rly i ng inc onsiste nc [ie s] from se rving a s substa

ntia l e vide nc e to support”the B IA’ s upholding of the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination. Soto-Olarte

v . Holde r , 555 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th C ir. 2009). W e like wise find tha

t a ny inc onsiste nc ie s re ga

rding Kum ar’ s c a ste we re trivia l, give n tha

t the Va lm iki a

nd M aha sha

c a s te s a re both c la ssifie d

a s Da lit, a

nd 4would the re fore re nde r him e qua lly vulne ra ble to m i stre a tm e n t. In a ddition, the B IA’ s fa ilure to a ddre ss som e of Kum ar’ s e xpla na tions for thec a ste inc o nsiste nc y

— i .e ., his fa ilure to unde rsta nd the que stion a

nd the a sy lum

offic e r’ s angry d e m e anor—

wa s a lso e rror. Id . Though theB IA’ s de c i sion wa s e rrone ous, the re re m a ins “ a re a sona ble prospe c t from

the a d m inistra t ive re c ord tha

t the re m ay be a dditiona l re a sons upon whic h the IJ or B IA c ould re ly ” in finding Kumar not c re dible . Id . a t 1095. In suc h situa tions, “ it is a

ppropria te to re m and in a

wa y tha t pe rm its the a ge nc y

to provide those re a sons.” Id . W e the re fore G RANT Kum ar’ s pe tition a nd RE M AND his c a se to the B IA so tha t it m ay de te rm ine his c re dibility . B e c a use ne ithe r the IJ nor the B IA c onside re d Kum ar’ s a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, or C AT c la im s inde pe nde nt from his a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination, if theB IA finds him to be c re dible on re m and, it is instruc te d to re c onside r Kum ar’ s c la im s in the first insta n c e . Id .

5